Friday, April 20, 2007

Week in Review

The Chronicle continued its record of thoughtful, incisive commentary on case-related issues with two editorials in the last week. The first dismissed Nifong’s “non-apology apology” as lacking “any genuine contrition” and reeking “of political posturing in light of Nifong’s own upcoming ethics trial before the North Carolina State Bar.”

As the editors point out, the disgraced DA used the statement to avoid personal responsibility for his actions, coupled with “a graceless, begrudging apology to the three players.” Indeed, his “year-long leadership of the case does not reflect errors of “human judgment’—as his pseudo-apology would have it—but rather appears to reveal a complete lack of professional and personal ethics.”

The Chronicle correctly observes that the key issue in this case wasn’t Nifong believing Crystal Mangum’s myriad, mutually contradictory tales, but rather the DA’s pattern of deciding to violate rules and procedures of the Durham city government and the North Carolina State Bar.

“In Nifong’s revisionist version of the Duke lacrosse case,” the editors conclude, “he is merely a well meaning public servant who put too much faith in a troubled woman. But history will remember that Nifong deserves condemnation for dragging three innocent men through what has proven to be a travesty of justice.”

---------

Chronicle editors also praised what could be called the “Dowd Rule,” a recent reform passed by the Academic Council to allow students, in limited circumstances, to appeal grades. Last spring, Kyle Dowd and another lacrosse player were taking a political science class from Group of 88 member Kim Curtis. On March 29, Curtis wrote an e-mail that described her two students, as well as the other members of the lacrosse team, as, at least, accomplices to rape. Thereafter their grades plummeted—both received C- on the second paper for the class, both received F on the final paper. Curtis gave Dowd an F for the course, only to have her grade changed to a D due to a “calculation error.”

The new policy ensures that a check exists on the faculty, through a procedure that requires a student to appeal first to their professor, then the department chair, and then the Director of Undergraduate Studies. If both officials disagree with the professor’s grade, a committee is formed to re-evaluate the student’s work, and reports to the dean of faculty.

The Chronicle concludes,

Dowd case or not, the lacrosse scandal revealed that certain students on this campus-and indeed on campuses across the country-may be more privileged in academic arenas than others. Professors are human, and many students have had teachers at some point in their Duke careers who carry certain biases.

And when—we hope once in a blue moon—there is a professor who is both stubborn and wrong, it is necessary to have a mechanism in place to hold them accountable.

---------

Three commentators who spoke out against Nifong’s actions from the start returned to the issue in op-eds at the conclusion of the case. In the Boston Globe, Cathy Young pointed out that Roy Cooper’s declaring the players innocent vindicated the women’s lacrosse players who were so savagely attacked last spring for wearing armbands expressing solidarity with their male colleagues.

The story of the case, Young recognized, was that “many people wouldn’t let the facts get in the way of a good crusade. Eighty-eight Duke faculty members signed a statement, drafted by Lubiano, that expressed solidarity with the students who rallied against the accused. Its language was drenched in a presumption of guilt.” Nationally, Wendy Murphy took a similar course in television appearances that “became a gold mine of disinformation.”

To Young,

it’s about time we humanized men who are victims of false accusations of rape. Feminism has made great strides in bringing attention to the tragedy of rape and the pain of its victims. Now, the Duke case may bring much-needed focus to the tragedy of false accusations. It is not anti female to say that some women do lie about rape—any more than it is anti male to say that some men rape women. The vindication of the Duke Three may in the end be a victory for true gender equity.

---------

As the case ended, Thomas Sowell saw the most important lesson as sending “a message about the kinds of gutless lemmings on our academic campuses, including our most prestigious institutions.”

Reflecting on AG Cooper’s announcement, Sowell compared conditions to a year ago, when “there was a lynch mob atmosphere against the accused students—from the Duke University campus to the national media, and including the local NAACP and the ever-present Jesse Jackson,” a mob atmosphere that culminated in the Group of 88’s statement.

Now, “after all the charges have collapsed like a house of cards, the campus lynch mob—including Duke University president Richard H. Brodhead—are backpedaling swiftly and washing their hands like Pontius Pilate. They deny ever saying that the students were guilty. Of course not. They merely acted as if that was a foregone conclusion, while leaving themselves an escape hatch.It is bad enough to be part of a lynch mob. It is worse to deny that you are part of a lynch mob, while standing there holding the rope in your hands.”

---------

Finally, Bernie Reeves of Raleigh’s Metro Magazinenoted that, in listing to AG Cooper’s press conference, “hat hit me is that the accuser and Nifong will not see themselves as wrong in their actions and lies.” In the politically correct atmosphere that dominated consideration of the case, “Truth then is also subjective. All that matters is maintaining the charade that selected victims are heroes and those that dare utter the truth are the enemy.”

In this vision, Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong were the selected heroes. “She was elevated in the politically hierarchy for her race and sex. Nifong was the white knight who defended her artificial status. The media were the chorus that gave them vigor to pursue their cause, influenced by their addiction to the thin veneer of the new politically correct regime that has invaded news rooms. Here, diversity is worshipped over objectivity; utopian political results over the means,” and “the ends—in this case bringing down white wealthy males—justify the means, even if it entails breaking all the rules of proper legal conduct.”

And the facilitators? Politically correct ideologues, people like Houston Baker, or Peter Wood, or Karla Holloway, who “used slander and libel as rockets and missiles, knowing the damage inflicted by accusing their enemies in public can’t ever be entirely washed away. After all, for 20 years they’ve been vilifying fellow professors they don’t want to have tenure and walking right over college administrators who dare stand up against them.”

---------

Among the cleverest articles on Nifong’s current dilemma came from Chronicle columnist Emily Thomey, who pens a column on religion. Thomey detected five versus from scripture that Mike Nifong appears to have forgotten from Sunday School. Her choices:

Proverbs 16:18: “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”

Matthew 7:3: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”

John 8:7: “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

2 Corinthians 7:2: “Make room for us in your hearts. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have exploited no one.”

John 8:32 “Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

“Whether you’re a Sunday school graduate or not,” Thomey contends, “remembering a few words from the Good Book never hurt. The article is wonderfully done: the full version, with a justification for each verse chosen, is here.

---------

The Springfield (MA) Republican takes note of AG Roy Cooper's statement that "a lot of people owe a lot of apologies to a lot of people." Eight days later, among the major players in the case, "here's the list of people who have apologized to the three players: Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong"--and he did so in a statement whose targeted audience appeared to be the State Bar:

The three student-athletes - David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty - have not received a public apology from Duke's "Group of 88." That's the coalition of arts and science faculty members who signed a full-page ad in the university newspaper commending a student demonstration that featured a wanted poster of the lacrosse team.

The three student-athletes - now former student-athletes - did not receive public apologies from the Rev. Jesse Jackson or the Rev. Al Sharpton, who appointed themselves prosecutor, judge and jury.

And they did not receive a public apology from those people in the media who joined the stampede in the rush to condemn.

---------

ABC-11 reports on two continuing signs of defiance from the Nifong camp. First, Nifong attorney David Freedman proclaims that the DA will remain silent until his ethics trial, and will not resign or request a leave of absence despite being charged with violating the Bar’s ethics guidelines, three North Carolina laws, and the U.S. Constitution.

Says Freedman, “Everyone is being heard from except Mr. Nifong. Mr. Nifong cannot be heard from because he does have trial coming up. It would be extremely improper for him to come forth to make any public interviews until he’s had the opportunity testify before the State Bar.”

This argument would make more sense had Nifong not given a three-hour December interview to the New York Times—after the Bar informed him that it was drawing up ethics charges.

Meanwhile, the last of the enablers—around a dozen people—held a “rally” yesterday outside the lacrosse house. One protester (who elected to remain nameless) described the group’s mission: “We want to make sure that the victim receives a fair hearing. We want to see justice prevail through a jury trial.”

The protester appeared unaware of how the justice system in the United States functions, but this problem appeared common in Durham over the past year.

--------

In the Wall Street Journal, Randy Barnett published a tribute to good lawyering—of the type that we certainly saw in this case, from figures such as Joe Cheshire, Brad Bannon, and Jim Cooney. He offers a powerful critique of the Nifong enablers:

Rather than praising the defense lawyers, some of the same folks who whooped in support of Mr. Nifong’s efforts are now bemoaning that it was the supposed wealth of these students’ parents that enabled them to mount so effective a defense. Never mind that draining all their savings and putting them in debt is an additional injustice resulting from this wrongful prosecution. Of course, as my grandfather used to say, “rich or poor, it’s nice to have money,” but this case shows that wealth is no defense to public ruin. Sometimes it even invites it.

Let us not be distracted all over again. The difficult problem of innocent defendants typically arises in run-of-the mill cases where prosecutors acting in good faith have no reason to doubt their guilt. It results in part from the pragmatic presumption of guilt, which leads to inadequate defense lawyering, an indifferent press and an oblivious public. There are no easy solutions to this. But refraining from ridiculing lawyers in general, and criminal defense lawyers in particular, would be a nice start, and one that lies within the power of everyone reading these words.

---------

Liestoppers took to task the UNC campus newspaper, which opposed AG Cooper’s suggestion to institute some checks on “rogue” prosecutors. The Daily Tar Heel’s argument? The system worked in the Nifong case. As Liestoppers observes, “The suggestion that the system worked also ignores and demeans the precious price paid by the innocents preyed upon by the rogue prosecutor.”

Moreover, “Imagine yourself in the place of the innocent victim of a rogue prosecutor willing to imprison you for thirty years in exchange for a larger pension. And now imagine that your avenue of relief depends on the mere hope of an unprecedented State Bar intervention following nine months of investigation.”

The blog concludes, correctly,

NC Attorney General Roy Cooper’s recent proposal to allow Supreme Court intervention may or may not be the ideal solution. Yet, the Nifong/Mangum Hoax has shown the extreme toll exacted from Nifong’s innocent victims, the reluctance of the local court to sanction or remove the DA despite his obvious misrepresentations and other misconduct, and the willingness of Superior Court Judge Hudson to defy statutory directives. Each of which unequivocally demonstrate that change in the form of additional oversight of elected district attorneys is necessary to mend a system that worked quite the opposite of “just fine.”

--------

Trying to ensure that one of the worst procedural abuses of the lacrosse case--Nifong's "no-wrong-choices" lineup--never occurs again, state Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Wake County) introduced a bill to make illegal two of the practices used by the Durham Police in the case: having an investigator involved in the case running the lineup, and confining the lineup to suspects only.

Ross noted, that the bill would “make sure innocent people are not put through the trauma of an unfair process. It'll also lead us to the guilty more quickly.”

Troublingly, Orange County DA Jim Woodall expressed skepticism about the measure: “We don't want to hinder our law enforcement. There are investigators who do good police work that isn't set out in a policy anywhere.”

Woodall, no doubt, is correct. But the lacrosse case also revealed that the state has investigators who do bad police work, and Ross' measure deserves passage.

---------

This week’s Sports Illustrated carries Mike Pressler’s recollection of the troubling manner in which he was dismissed.

“But Joe,” Pressler pleaded. “You stood up before my players and said you believe it never happened. The DNA is coming back any day. Wait for the truth.”

“It’s not about the truth anymore,” Pressler says Alleva told him. “It’s about the faculty, the NAACP, and the special interest groups.”

In addition to this deeply disturbing rationalization, Duke’s decision to fire Pressler but publicly state that he resigned created the impression that, perhaps, he either knew something about the scandal and was forced out or had decided to abandon his players. Yet in May, when President Brodhead met with the lacrosse team and was asked who fired Pressler, the president stated bluntly that he had.

All sides would have been better served had Duke stated so last April.

95 comments:

miramar
said...

KC is correct to praise the many outstanding editorials that have been published in the Duke Chronicle, which provide visible proof that the kids were smarter than the grownups.

I think it would be a good idea to remember some of Boston Cote's editorials last spring when the story broke. Her editorials served to change the groupthink on campus, which is to her credit. Perhaps her best column is "Houston, We Have a Problem," where she tears Professor Baker to shreds. A year later, it's still a worthwhile read:

I was unaware of the "Dowd Rule", but it begs the question "Is Kim Curtis still teaching at Duke?".

If she is, WHAT THE HELL? How could the catalyst for such a rule be allowed to continue teaching at Duke given the conduct she has demonstrated and the implicit condemnation of that conduct by the Duke administration?

When will the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI investigate the obvious widespread corruption in Durham? When will the civil rights investigation begin. When will Gov. Easley urge his appointee, Nifong, to resign his post? Does North Carolina want to become the butt of national jokes?

Sorry if I've asked this before. I missed the answer. When are all of Cooper's findings on what made him declare the boys "innocent" due to be made public? I'm sure we'd all like to know every detail (and I'm sure it will crush the remaining "well...something must have happened" crowd).

WOW - I saw Pressler doing an interview at his new college after last week's declaration of innocence. He was very impressive. But Athletic Director Alleva gutlessly wrapped this case up in one sentence, when he refused Pressler's plea to wait until the DNA evidence came in before firing Pressler:“It’s not about the truth anymore,” Pressler says Alleva told him. “It’s about the faculty, the NAACP, and the special interest groups.” WOW, just WOW. That's one sorry university.

Boston Globe's Cathy Young: It is not anti female to say that some women do lie about rape...

Oh, that sounds eminently reasonable, but that's not how it works in practice. How can believing the rape claimant and presuming the accused's innocence coexist? One or the other has to go. Can we really pretend that by assuming victimhood we are not also assuming victimizers?

In the past actual victims of rape were afraid to come forward. So, to correct this we staff our examination centers with women (some with backgrounds in Women's Studies), assign women counsellors (Women's Studies), give our justice authorities -- cops, even judges -- "sensitivity training", etc. Then we declare that fairness will result.

Well, something will result. This case shows that even physically impossible rape claims will be credited by many, including those who must understand very well that such a rape could never have occurred. Acknowledging that some rape claimants lie would mean tossing out the only way they can think of to "help" women. If a few innocent men have to sacrificed to this fiction, well, maybe that's justice for all of the rapes that happened in the past. It's the Chan Hall philosophy of equity.

It may not be anti-female to say that some women do lie about rape, but accepting such a notion undermines our current system of dealing with rape allegations entirely.

So what is the secret of the Hoax? Why did the Police go along with it? It makes no sense.

It would seem to be a combination of a police chief who was never there, some really incompetent investigators, and a city manager who ordered the officers who saw her that night to keep quiet. There is no question that anybody could have figured this out if they wanted to. Investigators Benjamin Himan and Mark Gottlieb ignored Kim Roberts' comments that the allegations were a crock, the written statements by the officers on the scene, staged bogus lineup afer bogus lineup, etc. They also swallowed Tara Levicy's unethical comments without bothering to consult the attending physician or examine the written report. DPD seems to be the Keystone Kops meet Barney Fife.

I certainly hope some of that comes out when the state DA releases his final report, which should have been out by now but I guess will come out in the coming days.

I keep reading posts from people asking when the feds are coming in to clean house. People. Listen. Alberto Gonzales is too busy defending himself from his enemies on the Hill--he doesn't have time to do his job. Secondly, how many members of congress have had the integrity and the courage to speak out? Neither of our two RINO U.S. Senators have uttered a word thus far; only Rep. Walter Jones has done the right thing. Without strong support from the legislative branch, the DOJ will continue to sit on its hands. As for the NC legislature, I've written to Senate President Pro Tem Basnight seeking his support for a change in NC laws regarding the flawed Grand Jury procedures. His answer? "Thank you for contacting this office. I value the input from people such as yourself etc. etc. blah, blah, blah." Make no waves is obviously the motto of the big boys in Raleigh. It's up to people like KC and the Liestoppers, because, frankly my dears, our elected representatives just don't give a damn.

He was right from the very beginning. He pointed out early on that all Nifong was interested in was getting re-elected, and that his irrational behaviour made perfect sense for somebody with his motive.

He also pointed out that after re-election, Nifong would try to delay the case for as long as possible, so that people would lose interest in it, and not care as much when it was finally dropped/dismissed.

Sowell compared this delay tactic with a common street hustle, using the very apt expression "cooling off the mark."

He further said its a shame when anyone allows themselves to be hustled by an unskilled , amateur like Nifong.

'Meanwhile, the last of the enablers—around a dozen people—held a “rally” yesterday outside the lacrosse house. One protester (who elected to remain nameless) described the group’s mission: “We want to make sure that the victim receives a fair hearing. We want to see justice prevail through a jury trial.” '

Actually there is a long list of enablers who no doubt cling tenaciously to their orthodoxy or continue to believe in their complicit actions. The former in particular will be found on the Duke campus in the faculty and administration.

It might be useful to recall what we have to thank for the Gang, and such as Brodhead, throughout this country, the successful product of "the long march through the institutions":

First, radical feminism. This movement has introduced the following rot into our national psyche:

1. The means justify the ends, i.e., anything said or done for "the cause" is justified and never deserving of an apology or retraction.

2. "Truth" is an antiquated concept, as are "facts," "reality" and "morality." Everything is relative and must be viewed through the enlightened lens of "the cause." See 1.

3. "Logic" is a flawed patriarchal construct, the notion of old white males, and is thus dismissed. Again, see 1.

Then we have neo-socialism, into which both gender and race have been neatly packaged along with the more traditional class nonsense. This twisted worldview rests upon:

1. There are the oppressed masses, the oppressors and the enlightened few who are striving to correct the injustices which result from this imbalance.

2. The "oppressed masses" have now been codified into law as recognized victim groups - Blacks and some other racial minorities, and women. Victim group members are of course not responsible for their plight, or any actions which can be attributed to their plight - which is effectively any and all.

3. Oppressors are everyone else, excluding the enlightened few. "Everyone else" then particularly consists of non-Blacks, non-females and the wealthy/successful. Thus "rich white males" have become synonymous with evil, and victim group members who reject the message, leave the fold and succeed in the world are especially heinous offenders.

4. The remainder of the social model, this "enlightened few," encompasses the class/race/gender hustlers cum activists cum educators, who see themselves as righting the wrongs of a modern society which does not subscribe to their preconceived notions of a socialist utopia that history has largely discarded as unworkable. They are aggressive in their beliefs, fundamentally dishonest (by the lights of us non-believers), and totally unapologetic for their methods.

NONE OF THE ABOVE WILL BE NOTICEABLY AFFECTED BY THIS CASE.

This unwholesome situation has been expanding much like a viral epidemic since the 60's. It can be corrected, but correction will be a long, unpleasant process. That process has begun, and to succeed it must never lose sight of the viral enemy.

The Gang of 88, Brodhead et al are not some temporary, accidental anomaly. They are combatants in a movement that deliberately entrenched itself in parts of society that influence future generations. The classes they teach and policies they promote are coldly self-serving and self-supporting, and equate to little more than child abuse - a fact which does not bother them in the least.

Those of us who value the basic mores and values on which the United States was founded and for which we fought, and continue to fight, foreign wars, must recognize this much more insidious conflict in which we are engaged here at home. It is nothing less than a fight for survival of the basic beliefs and values that made us a great nation, and which are being eroded away by the enemy within.

My apologies to patient readers for the length of this post, but I sincerely believe it is extremely important not to lose sight of the greater context for which the Duke lax tragedy has provided such a shining example.

KC said "On March 29, Curtis wrote an e-mail that described her two students, as well as the other members of the lacrosse team, as, at least, accomplices to rape. Thereafter their grades plummeted—both received C- on the second paper for the class, both received F on the final paper. Curtis gave Dowd an F for the course, only to have her grade changed to a D due to a “calculation error."

If Curtis is actually guilty of what is alleged (and she deserves the assumption of innocence also), then that was a terrible mis-use of her authority.

The right course is for her to be reprimanded, or perhaps fired.

The remedy adopted, more and more administrative review procedures, just diverts time away from the other good students who would otherwise receive it. Not every problem can be solved by ever more elaborate review procedures; sooner or later real people have to make correct judgments.

p. rich : I agree with your diagnosis of radical feminism. (Though I support reasonable feminism all the way). The radical leftist feminists you describe, like so many extremists around the world, have no conscience regarding innocent victims. This case might not change their beliefs, but at least it exposed them to most of the country. With haters, as with spiders, the female is often the deadlier of the species.

More idiotic comments on the Duke case on the SouthernSemantics blog. Some people just can't let go of their insistence that the boys are the bad ones, so they stoop to being little Jerry Falwells: shocked that the boys hired strippers! Of course there's not one peep from them that strippers have been hired by other men- probably every night in Durham- before, during, and after the Duke case.

KC,Looking forward to purchasing your book. I found this blogg only a few months ago but have found it highly addictive, at times I would check 3 times a day for your new posts. So I'm glad you are scaling down and taking off weekends if possible. You will have more time to pursue other interests and to relax and I can be safely weaned off DIW. Thanks for highly informative, wonderful blog. I enjoyed all the links and "footnotes". I wish I had had a Professor like you when I was at the University, it surely would have been a great influence on my budding future. Thank, KC

Mangum's supporters forget that nothing is stopping her from filing a civil suit! She even has a lower burden of proof, she only has to prove that her 'attack' was more likely than not to have occured.

If Crystal wants a jury trial she can have one, though its possible a real judge wouldn't find even probable cause in a civil case. My guess is we shouldn't be holding our breath until she files a civil suit, my guess is there is no black lawyer in the country and not even Wendy Murphy would take her case, even given the lower burden of proof in a civil case.

The comment below does not refer to you; I am directing it at Curtis's enablers. I agree especially with your comment that we don't need more review procedures for cases like this (we also don't need more wimpy reprimands, which mean nothing) . Guilty parties, like Curtis, simply need to be made to go away.

Curtis is a visiting professor; she has no tenure or a permanent contract with Duke. She must be terminated for her offense, period. Anyone who believes the "F" the 2 LAX players received resulted from "miscalculation" -- I've got some prime real estate in a Florida swamp I want to sell you. Since Curtis doesn't have tenure, this is an easy one, and under no circumstances should her visting professor status be renewed if Duke wants to claim it has learned anything from the hoax.

8:25 AM

It may be more correct to say that D.A.M.N. is being paid as the full-time DA. I'm not sure how much actual work the citizens of Durham County are getting for their money. The facts of this case indicate to me that Nifong hasn't worked much as a DA since at least March 2006. Campaigned, gave news briefings, and lied, lied, lied -- yes. Actual work -- no.

The story about the protesters at the LAX house was apparently written by someone in sympathy with the cause. "All of those charges have been dropped citing insufficient evidence.AG Cooper said in a press conference last week the accuser could not identify the suspects, and changed her story."

The AG also said the Duke 3 are INNOCENT, but the reporter left that out. Maybe he just didn't want it to look too much like he'd been sent out to cover complete nutters.

While most of the group of 88 are tenured professors, Kim Curtis is a visiting assistant professor, even though she received her Ph.D. in 1991. In academia, she should be a full professor by now, instead of a visiting assistant. (By the way, the progression is Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and then Professor, which is also called Full Professor. Each step should take no more than six years, which means that she should have reached the highest rank three years ago.) The fact that she has the rank of a newly minted Ph.D. is ample proof of her marginal academic credentials. As a visiting, she would likely be under contract for a few years (usually no more than four), and typically those contracts are not renewed.

Great post, indeed, P.Rich!K.C., thanks once again for your wonderful work throughout this awful ordeal. As P.Rich so eloquently points out, there is much to be done, and it will take a long time. Starting at Duke, I exhort my fellow Duke alums to divert every dime they might otherwise be inclined to give to Duke to the fund for the lacrosse players' defense until: 1. Brodhead, his senior administration supporters and Steel have resigned; 2. The Gang of 88 have been strongly and publicly rebuked and have issued substantive public apologies; and 3. The lacrosse players and their families--primarily, of course, the Seligmanns, the Finnertys and the Evans--have been made completely financially whole by Duke. --Bob Hyde, Duke '67

Great article by Peggy Noonan in WSJ about the heartlessness of the media. Hope you take a look at it KC. I too will miss your daily blog but I have taken to heart that I am not powerless against injustice. For example, I never had read or responded to blogs or newspapers before-now I do.

We won the cold war, but there has been lots of blowback. One technique that was employed in this conflict with great success was finding an internal group that would be cohesive and could be turned against an ememy.

I would encourage any student who has the opportunity to take a course on the "Biological Basis of Behavior" or to read a book on the subject. It turns out that it is pretty easy to predict and to provoke behaviors that are against peoples' own self-interest.

We came too close to some major societal breakdowns in the 60s. There were real injustices that needed to be attended to. However, we have been fooled into taking things past the point of reason and into the sphere of self-destruction. This is largly accomplished through distortion and selective presentation of "facts" and promoting the idea there there can be no objectivbe truth. The cult of victimhood is one widespread mechanism employed to drive this destruction.

Really, the sort of thing we have seen here is very destructive. If everyone starts playing the zero-sum-game of identity politics, we are all in trouble. In fact, just having the PC crowd running around stiring up trouble is a very serious problem, particuarly since they seem to be able to get their way by being very vocal -- and persistent.

Think back on where things have gone over the last 50 years. Instead of eliminating povery and social divisions, these things have been exploited for personal gain and political power by a few who trick whole populations and prey on the fears they create. These people depend on maintaining and growing the base, and so have every motivation to continue to stoke the very problems they purport to oppose.

The viral analogy is apt. Once these dynamics are set up, things tend to spread unchecked and unnoticed, consuming the host.

to 819 from a non-lawyer / retired professor: A follow-up to your commments. Why isn't Professor Curtis placed on paid administative leave pending the adjutication of the grade complaint from student Dowd? I can only assume that the Duke administration supports and condones these serious allegations of grade retaliation by Curtis. Retrospectively, we know that they fired Coach Pressler for a trumped-up pc hoax. And of course, DA Nifong should at the very least be on paid adminstrative leave pending the outcome of the ethics charges.

I wish Emily Thomey's excellent provision of biblical scriptures would jar at a least a few of the local black pastors to some honest introspection. The Christian black church, as a whole, has been used and abused by "activists" for decades. When will truth seeking Godly black men put their faith ahead of their politics? MLK, Jr. would certainly be disappointed with how his works have been bastardized by so many "men of the cloth", and that many of the most vile racists remaining in America today are black. A huge majority of black Americans are Christians, yet the race hatred and tunnel vision that they perpetuate generation after generation is both shameful and un-Christlike.

9:35, I'm in total agreement that the pendulum has swung to the far left As you said "...Think back on where things have gone over the last 50 years. Instead of eliminating povery and social divisions, these things have been exploited for personal gain and political power by a few who trick whole populations and prey on the fears they create.

However! The much needed 60s' movement included much more than eliminating poverty and social divisions, and the leaders who advocated these changes were well intended.

Great job on the Duke Lacrosse reports and looking forward to your upcoming book. Been a regular reader of your blog for the past year and would appreciate your comments on two issues that have bothered me on the alleged rape investigation:

1. In April the Durham police knew there were several unknown DNA male samples removed from Crystal’s body or clothing. To date there appears to be no record the Durham police ever tried to determine to whom the DNA belonged.a. Can this be true?b. Surprised Crystal’s supporters have not complained it may belong to other privileged white males?c. Could they really know and are they hiding the identity of a Durham political figure?d. If no effort to trace the DNA – unbelievable shoddy police work!

2. Assume you have been in the house at North Buchanan Street? Can you comment on the size of the bathroom where the alleged rape was done? Is it reasonable that it would be large enough to hold 3 large males and Crystal (who does not appear to be a little petite female)? The alleged rape that was described appeared to need a significant amount of space and the photos of the outside of the house give the impression the bathrooms would not be large. I wonder if the tape measures shown with the special investigators & NC Attorney General were also primarily used in the bathrooms.

"Do you believe that all pioneers who led changes during the 60's are at fault for the unwholemsome situation we have today?"

I believe that's referred to as selective recall and gross generalization, as I did not in any way refer to those who sought change on legitimate moral grounds. Perhaps you've forgotten the VDC, Black Panthers, permissiveness/drug subculture, Communist sympathizers groups, violent destructive protests, reverse discrimination at any cost, etc.

Today's hustlers/activists only usurp the mantle of those such as MLK. Underneath the distorted rhetoric there is no moral substance.

This bathroom has an antigravity field. It is also much larger on the inside than it is on the outside, so you really could fit 20 guys in there. And, to top this all off, time slows on the inside, so that less than 5 min. actually becomes nearly an hour.Plus, it is like the Bemuda Triangle for DNA -- it dissappears!

There are no reasons (lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility or otherwise) limiting Mr. Nifong's right to publically speak if he wishes. Typically, however, lawyers will not want their clients to make public statements in high-profile cases, especially one such as Mr. Nifong who, like the alleged victim, cannot say the same thing twice. A more accurate reason for Mr. Nifong's silence is that statements he makes could be used at the bar hearing to cross-examine him or become relevant in a civil rights lawsuit or criminal investigation of his activities.

Instead of "extremely improper" for him to speak now, it would be extremely stupid. However, that hasn't stopped him in the past. Perhaps his lawyer could edify us as to the legal strictures preventing Mr. Nifong from making public comments.

To me, he now looks like a deer in the headlights, awaiting the inevitable.

Reading of Mike Pressler's recollection of his conversation with Joe Alleva as he was being fired from his 16 year career at Duke, it makes my BLOOD BOIL to think that Brodhead would submit to the most extreme elements of his faculty, and to the NAACP, in taking his marching orders to fire Pressler.

Who will the NAACP want fired next? And when will Duke have a President who will defend the truth, and not kneel in submission to outside special interest groups.

Brodhead "the craven" must be made to suffer the same experience he inflicted on Mike Pressler "the honorable".

With respect to Curtis, folks here don't "get it". She is married to Romand Coles, Associate Professor of Political Science and Germanic Languages & Literature, who is indeed tenured. To get a sense of Coles, see https://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/PoliticalScience/faculty/coles

Why isn't Professor Curtis placed on paid administative leave pending the adjutication of the grade complaint from student Dowd? I can only assume that the Duke administration supports and condones these serious allegations of grade retaliation by Curtis.

Exactly. Can you imagine a card carrying KKK professor doing this to a black student and not getting sued/terminated?Duke has not even investigated this. This is a disgrace, but hardly surprising. Standard operating practise at Duke.

BTW: Nifong wanted to get his fat pension. When he has stayed long enough? I guess he will resign the next day (with his fat pension).

I strongly object to using the name "Dowd Rule" as a shorthand for the admirable appeal process for a grade given by a professor incorrectly or (as here) maliciously. It should be named the "Curtis Rule" so that Kim Curtis, not an innocent student, will be long remembered for the perversion of the academic process which created the need for a check on professors' ability to assign grades.

I guess I don't understand the workings of the Dow rule:"The new policy ensures that a check exists on the faculty, through a procedure that requires a student to appeal first to their professor, then the department chair, and then the Director of Undergraduate Studies. If both officials disagree with the professor’s grade, a committee is formed to re-evaluate the student’s work, and reports to the dean of faculty."

So the student appeals to the instructor who says, "no". He can then appeal to the dept. chair. If the chair says, "no foul", then any appeal to the dir. of undergrad studies is moot, since they must both disagree with the professor's grade. If the dept. chair say, "foul" that alone is not enough to get a review of the student's work. The undergrad dir. must say "foul" as well.

Do I have this right? If so, such a scheme would serve to protect instructors and administrators far more than students.

"I keep reading posts from people asking when the feds are coming in to clean house. People. Listen. Alberto Gonzales is too busy defending himself from his enemies on the Hill--he doesn't have time to do his job. Secondly, how many members of congress have had the integrity and the courage to speak out? Neither of our two RINO U.S. Senators have uttered a word thus far; only Rep. Walter Jones has done the right thing. Without strong support from the legislative branch, the DOJ will continue to sit on its hands. As for the NC legislature, I've written to Senate President Pro Tem Basnight seeking his support for a change in NC laws regarding the flawed Grand Jury procedures. His answer? "Thank you for contacting this office. I value the input from people such as yourself etc. etc. blah, blah, blah." Make no waves is obviously the motto of the big boys in Raleigh. It's up to people like KC and the Liestoppers, because, frankly my dears, our elected representatives just don't give a damn".

to 1013, 1051 & 1057 from a non-lawyer / retired professor: As a retired academic, I just cannot express how offended I am by the allegations of grade retaliation by Professor Curtis and the apparent indifference by the Duke administration. It goes to the very integrity of the academic experience. I don't mind it being referred to as the Dowd rule since I see it as a tribute to the perserverance of student Dowd standing up against the politically correct faculty at Duke. Any appeal system depends on the integrity of the faculty, chairs, and deans, and sadly, integrity seems to be lacking among the great majority of faculty who have gone public over the Duke hoax. There are notable exceptions such as Professor Coleman and the Economics facutly. I do suspect and hope that the silent majority of Duke faculty, who have not spoken publicly about the hoax, go about their faculty duties, such as assigning grades, with integrity. The Curtis case is unique in the sense that she went public in railing about the LAX players. If it were not for her public statements, it would be much more difficult for student Dowd to make the case of grade retaliation. I wish there was an easy answer to deal with cases of grade retaliation, but there are no easy answers.

I think most of the readers of DIW would agree with the sentiments of one of the protestors in front of the lacrosse house:“We want to make sure that the victim receives a fair hearing. We want to see justice prevail through a jury trial.”

Mangum should be allowed and required to present her side of the story - as the defendent in both criminal and civil trials. In front of federal juries...

Anonymous 2:46 said... ...So what is the secret of the Hoax? Why did the Police go along with it? It makes no sense. ::There are many groups of people that have been working together to make this hoax happen and we have yet to seen anyone speak of these groups as a single system of interrelated and interdependent agendas.When that happens 2:46, then it will make sense.Stay Tuned!Nifong is not going down alone. He is not the type of person to fall on his sword. When this hoax is finally revealed it will look like it was created and choreographed by Puccini.::GP

Anonymous 10:57 said... ...I guess I don't understand the workings of the Dow rule:"The new policy ensures that a check exists on the faculty, through a procedure that requires a student to appeal first to their professor, then the department chair, and then the Director of Undergraduate Studies. If both officials disagree with the professor’s grade, a committee is formed to re-evaluate the student’s work, and reports to the dean of faculty."

So the student appeals to the instructor who says, "no". He can then appeal to the dept. chair. If the chair says, "no foul", then any appeal to the dir. of undergrad studies is moot, since they must both disagree with the professor's grade. If the dept. chair say, "foul" that alone is not enough to get a review of the student's work. The undergrad dir. must say "foul" as well.

Do I have this right? If so, such a scheme would serve to protect instructors and administrators far more than students. ::Sure. The rule is a deterrent. Or to put it another way, it slows down mean people who like to punish. Deterrent! Just slows 'em down. ::GP

Joe - I have yet to see any sign of a reasonable feminism. Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Cathy Young and others like them are not seen by the mainstream feminists as "real" feminists. they call them anti-feminists. If you know of reasonable feminists please tell us who they are. NOW is filled with radicals who fit nicely into P Rich's post. Who else?

In their blind rage against men they have become worse than anything they rail against. And so it goes.

I am not sure how much the police were involved after July,06 - Once Nifong took over as Chief Investigator - the investigation stopped. Nifong sends Wilson (who is not a cop) for the few interview conducted - nothing from Gottlieb or Himan (I think Gottlieb knew where enough bodies were buried to get off the case). Maybe Gottlieb's four month old "remembrance" was an indication to not take his account seriously. Just a thought. The Police Chief is no where to be found and no indication who was assuming his responsibilities. When Joe talks about "how hard it is to for a lawyer to fight the DA - it must be just as hard for a cop."

RE the Dowd grade appeal proposal:So what happens if the accused teacher, the department head, and the director of undergraduate studies are either all of the 88 ilk or a cominbination of the 88 ilk and those who fear to oppose or confront them? A distinct possibility with some departments.Fat chance for justice for the plaintiff student.

Anonymous 10:07 said... This bathroom has an antigravity field. It is also much larger on the inside than it is on the outside, so you really could fit 20 guys in there. And, to top this all off, time slows on the inside, so that less than 5 min. actually becomes nearly an hour.Plus, it is like the Bemuda Triangle for DNA -- it dissappears! ::You made me spill my ice tea. That is so funny.Thanks::GP

anon. 10:13 indicates that Kim Curtis is a spousal hire, which means that she will probably be at Duke for a long time. Since her husband, Romand Coles, is a permanent associate professor (19 years after finishing his Ph.D.), why would Duke hire two mediocre people at once? Spousal hires are only supposed to happen when one of them is truly outstanding in the field. At the same time, if Duke wanted to act in a serious fashion, her behavior to students would be sufficient to terminate her contract. After all, if her husband left as a result, this would only represent one less permanent associate professor on the payroll.

Susan Estrich? um, isnt' she the one who said that there are really four victims in this case, the three lax players AND Crystal Gail Mangum? LOL She gives the false accuser a pass, she was really a victim. Now that's a feminist.

This bathroom has an antigravity field. It is also much larger on the inside than it is on the outside, so you really could fit 20 guys in there. And, to top this all off, time slows on the inside, so that less than 5 min. actually becomes nearly an hour. Plus, it is like the Bemuda Triangle for DNA -- it dissappears!

Apr 20, 2007 10:07:0O

Brilliant. I'm amazed Cooper could keep a straight face on 60 minutes. I wonder if this magic bathroom is unique to the Buchanan house...or if the anti-gravity follows her wherever she goes.

I knew that Curtis was married to a tenured prof and that was why she is a visiting professor when I made my earlier comment.

I admit ignorance about how this works in academia.

Even though Coles doesn't seem to be a scholar of national repute, he is tenured so he can't be touched (unless he really screws up), but why would Curtis get a free pass since she is not tenured? Other than the fact that Brodhead and the BofT have glass (rather than brass) balls, what's to stop someone from calling in Coles and Curtis and saying we can't do anything to you, Coles, but your wife is outa here. And if that means you want to leave too, then do us all a favor and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

I know you can't fire him, but what makes Coles worth accommdating by keeping his POS wife on the faculty?"

6:49: Mikey, is that you again? Since you have only a couple of months left in your D.A. job, you'd better quit wasting time reading and posting on these blogs and get back to work. There are lots of cases in your office, and lots of people you can still manage to frame before you get kicked out on your a$$ in June.

Feminism? A long, long time ago that movement veered into the ditch where every issue is distilled down to a few simple maxims: Females are the helpless victims of evil masculine power - except that they are sronger and better than men in almost every way. Men and women are the same underneath - except that women can do everything better plus gestate babies. Affirmative action is justified because - women are stronger and better than men and because weak, stupid men have somehow denied them their due.. A "wage gap?" Well, it should be closed by forcing employers to pay women more per hour worked - because, Oh, who gives a shi-t. Ordinary, sane, recognizable notions of "equality" were banished from the sisterhood back when R. Nixon was president. No example of female priviledge and preferrence will ever be acknowledged or repudiated, no example of male sacrifice will ever be considered. In dealing with them always be polite. But never forget that the only language they understand is force.You are wasting your time with logic and appeals to common interest.

P. Rich - excellent post. It used to be easy to ignore the class/race/gender hustlers. Many of us are too busy pursuing the American Dream to pay attention to or get excited about incidents in which these forces prevailed by using the tactics P.Rich describes so well. But now, perhaps it would be prudent to take a long hard look at those whose goals are best achieved by taking away others’ right to life, liberty and ability to pursue happiness for no other reason than envy and a desire to tip the balance of power in their favor. They want to pervert the very freedoms that make America what it is, among them the freedom to rise or fall by your own actions rather than the determination of another.

Nifong referring to “rich daddies”; the resentful tone of those who think it unfair that Mr. Evans has a good job; the myriad quotes similar to this:“if you are a rich white male you can do anything to anyone”...it is time to stop supporting those who hold this view with media attention and by acceding to their demands. There is a pathology here, a pathology of envy and resentment and a non-productive focus on what others have instead of what they lack.

Reason rather than emotion should prevail. Rape cannot be a decision - it is an act and if you need to think about whether you were, you weren’t. Any woman who doesn’t rush to the hospital ASAP for a SANE exam should be treated with scepticism. Sympathy feels so good some people are addicted to it - the victim culture is the sorry result. It feeds those who crave attention and validation. There is societal pressure on everyone else to feel sorry for a victim - it becomes unacceptable to hold them in any way responsible for their problems. It allows certain groups to leverage this pressure to gain power and influence.

Things have gone too far in a negative direction when all that has been achieved is sanctioned bullying. Just ask yourself who would you rather be in these two scenarios:a) a false rape accusation: the man or the woman?b) falsely accused of saying the "n-word" OR a hate crime : black or white?

And to Georgia Girl: WRONG! The 60's look good only if you are an ex-hippie or a current liberal with soft-focus lenses on. The appalling attitudes that are hurting America were already well-developed. (About the Watts riots:)“Few Negroes, feel penitent about it. Why should they? It triggered federal anti-poverty activity...”

Whitney Young Jr. of the Nt’l Urban League describes the big change after the Watts riots: before the riots, he begged audiences of corporate leaders (he was promoting preferential hiring for blacks). After - they begged him...and sent limos. He notes that he has been too busy for public appearances, stating “This is what gets you the publicity - go on TV and denounce the white man.” Life Magazine, June 3 1966

This bathroom has an antigravity field. It is also much larger on the inside than it is on the outside, so you really could fit 20 guys in there. And, to top this all off, time slows on the inside, so that less than 5 min. actually becomes nearly an hour.Plus, it is like the Bemuda Triangle for DNA -- it dissappears!

So CGM discovered a way to violate the rules of space and time, matter and energy. There may be a Nobel Prize in her future!

Georgia Girl "Feminism" in its modern forms has systematically lied about social history and deliberately obscured all of the ways in which powerful women have always been able to arrange family matters and gender roles in ways that best served their interests. When feminists do not want an argument to continue, invoking the subject of rape is a time-honored means of changing the subject or otherwise paralyzing discussion. So, what are you on about?

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review